※ 引述《simmon989 (劲舞飞扬)》之铭言： : 标题:欧巴马昭告世界 美国将领导对抗气候变迁 : 新闻来源:http://tw.news.yahoo.com/article/url/d/a/090127/19/1dlv2.html : （法新社华盛顿26日电） : 美国总统欧巴马在着手实施国内新政策以废除前任布希政府的全球暖化政策同时，今天 : 誓言领导全世界，以因应气候变迁问题。 : 另一方面，国务卿希拉蕊．柯林顿（HillaryClinton）已遴选1名京都议定书的资深谈判 : 代表，作为她的气候变迁特使。 : 欧巴马说，「我们将向全世界表明，美国愿意出而领导」，这显然是指责前总统布希不愿 : 掌管全球行动以对抗气候变迁。 : 欧巴马说：「为保护我们的气候和集体安全，我们必须纠合出一个真正的全球联盟。」 : 欧巴马已签署备亡录，期能激励美国挣扎求生的汽车业设计出新的省油汽车，以减少美国 : 经济对能源生产国的依赖。 : 他说：「华府行事慢半拍的日子过去了。」 : 他说，「我的政府不会否认事实，我们会以事实为依据」，这显然是针对布希政府官员被 : 指意识型态凌驾科学之上而言。 : ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ : 美国任命气候变化问题特使 : http://big5.home.news.cn/gate/big5/news.xinhuanet.com/world/2009-01/27/ : content_10724555.htm : 新华网华盛顿１月２６日电（记者任海军） : 美国国务卿希拉里．克林顿２６日任命气候变化专家托德．斯特恩为美国气候变化问题特 : 使。斯特恩还将担任奥巴马政府的国际气候政策首席顾问以及首席气候谈判代表。 : ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ : 在宣布这项任命时，希拉里．克林顿说，气候变化危机的紧迫性不容忽视，有关气候 : 变化的一些科学结论和科学事实也不容否认，在总统奥巴马的领导下，美国将带头应对气 : 候变化。 : 斯特恩则指出，否认、耽搁、争论应该停止了，到了美国坐到气候变化谈判桌前的正 : 确位置的时候了。 : 斯特恩曾于１９９３年至１９９８年担任美国时任总统比尔．克林顿的顾问，多次参 : 加与《京都议定书》有关的谈判。 : 美国前总统布什２００１年上台伊始，即宣布美国退出旨在控制全球温室气体排放的 : 《京都议定书》，美国目前是唯一没有批准《京都议定书》的主要发达国家。布什政府最 : 初否认全球气候在变暖，继而又否认全球气候变暖是人类活动造成的。对于国际上的气候 : 变化谈判，布什政府也消极应对，其政策不仅在国际上受到指责，在国内也面临巨大压力 : 。 : 分析人士认为，美国现任总统奥巴马可望在气候变化问题上采取更积极务实的政策， : 以缓解国内外的压力。 环境问题和经济问题，欧巴马政府对两项问题要取得平衡，下面文章是在说明此项情形 ，大家慢慢看吧！谢谢。 Energy, economy create balancing act for Obama 资料来源： http://www.cnn.com/2009/TECH/science/01/30/obama.climate.change/index.html CNN) -- Environmentalists are encouraged by President Barack Obama's focus this week on renewable energy and stricter emissions standards, although some economists are skeptical he can pull the country out of the recession while cleaning up the planet. President Barack Obama with Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood and EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson. Obama must strike a careful balance between stimulating the economy in the coming months and investing in the long-term future of the environment, said Raj Chetty, professor of economics at the University of California, Berkeley. "If you spend money too quickly, you lose site of the long-term vision," Chetty told CNN. "If you focus too much on the long term, you may not act on spending money." Framing his remarks with an eye on the recession, the president on Monday announced a plan for "a new energy economy that will build millions of jobs." Obama proposes to put 460,000 Americans to work through clean energy investments, increasing fuel efficiency in vehicles and reducing greenhouse gas emissions. By 2025, the Obama administration hopes one-fourth of the nation's energy will come from renewable sources. Over the long term, the president hopes to create millions of new jobs by investing $150 billion in taxpayer money to help private companies develop new sources of clean energy, such as wind, solar and geothermal power. It's about time, say scientists who often clashed with former President George W. Bush on environmental policy. "By repowering our nation with clean energy, we will create millions of jobs that can't be sent overseas. By harnessing the energy of the sun and wind, we can refuel our nation and end our addiction to oil," said Wesley Warren, director of programs for the Natural Resources Defense Council. Environmental scholars, however, say the changes Obama seeks are not easy. "These technologies are not new. They have been around for 10 to 15 years," said Bill Chameides, dean of the Nicholas School of Environment at Duke University. "Government can push new policies, but it has to prove to be economically competitive or else it will not happen." "It is going to require massive investments," said Joseph Romm, former acting assistant secretary of energy under the Clinton administration and senior fellow at the Center for American Progress. "The only question is, are we going to be the leader and export our technologies or a follower and continue importing our resources?" Some economists question whether spending government money on new energy technologies is the best way to stimulate the economy in the short term. Opponents of Obama's proposals say renewable energy would be expensive, take up large amounts of land, and might not even be able to generate sufficient energy given the aging infrastructure of the nation's electric grid. "If the private sector will not invest in these technologies, it will not be efficient," said Alan Reynolds, senior fellow at the Cato Institute. "Creating jobs by switching from one form of energy to another is a bad idea," he added. "You don't need subsidies for anything that is free. Getting a $7,000 rebate on a $100,000 plug-in electrical hybrid that gets its power from a coal plant doesn't make a lot of sense." Several events in Washington this week underscored the Obama administration's commitment to environmental issues. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton on Monday named a special envoy to pursue global agreements combating global warming. On Wednesday, former Vice President Al Gore urged Congress to approve Obama's stimulus package and said the United States needs to join international talks on a climate-change treaty. "For years our efforts to address the climate crisis have been undermined by the idea that we must chose between our planet and our way of life, between our moral duty and economic well-being these are false choices," Gore told the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. "In fact, the solutions to the climate crisis are the same solutions that will address our economic and national crisis as well." Obama may have science on his side. By overwhelming consensus, scientists agree that our warming planet poses a greater global threat with every passing day. The replacement of current technology with energy generated from natural resources, such as sunlight and wind, could help reduce CO2 emissions by 50 percent by 2050, according to the International Energy Agency. "Frankly the science is screaming at us," said Sen. John Kerry, chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, at Wednesday's hearing. "Carbon dioxide emissions grew at a rate of four times faster in the Bush administration than they did in the 1990s." Even so, experts agree the faltering economy will complicate any discussion about investment in clean energy. "The country is running two deficits," said David Orr, a professor of environmental studies and politics at Oberlin College, "the economy in the short term, which will take one to five years to figure out [and] the environment in the long term, which if we don't do anything about it will see catastrophic effects." --

※ 发信站: 批踢踢实业坊(ptt.cc) ◆ From: 220.134.51.75